Sarasota building height limits cast into doubt

Published: Friday, October 14, 2011 at 9:36 p.m.

Last Modified: Friday, October 14, 2011 at 9:36 p.m.

Developers could potentially build skyscrapers as tall as they want under a set of sweeping changes approved by county commissioners this week with little discussion.

The changes, which eliminate longstanding height restrictions on new developments, were included in a zoning amendment for a development in Nokomis.

The changes were so confusing that at least one commissioner, Nora Patterson, later said she did not fully understand the magnitude of what she had voted on.

The amendment also shortened the required distance between buildings. Developers will still need approval for their project from a majority of commissioners.

Although developers could previously get exceptions to the height limits, which typically ranged from 35 to 50 feet depending on the area, they were rare and involved a significant amount of public input and scrutiny. The special exceptions were limited in most places to no more than 85 feet.

"This just stunned me when I saw it," said Dan Lobeck, a Sarasota attorney and slow growth advocate. "It's short language with huge impact. Instead of a narrowly tailored amendment for the Nokomis Area Revitalization Plan, staff comes in with this broad-brush thing that throws out limits entirely."

Lobeck and others worry that developers will have no guidelines to know what an acceptable height for a building is, and that there will be an insufficient chance for neighbors to weigh in on, say, plans for a 15-story building next door.

The amendment comes amid other moves by the county and state to loosen restrictions on growth in an effort to spark development — and the jobs that come with it.

"The developers are exercising more and more influence over the county commission," Lobeck said. "In 20 years I've never seen it this bad."

The county is also considering allowing more retail development in areas previously designated for high-wage jobs and eliminating community charrette requirements.

Earlier this year, the state stopped overseeing local planning decisions and made it harder for citizens to challenge new developments. The state also loosened the requirement of concurrency, which ensures roads, sewer lines and other infrastructure are built to accommodate new developments.

County Commissioner Joe Barbetta said loosening the county's restrictions will stimulate development in a time when the economy is still reeling from the Great Recession. He added that he did not think the amendment was misleading.

"Staff has been working on it for awhile so it wasn't a surprise to anybody," Barbetta said.

But the language in the amendment left some officials confused.

When Patterson realized what she had voted on, she chastised staff for not making it clear that the amendment called for such a "serious change." Patterson said she would not have noticed the language had Lobeck not brought it to the commission's attention, and that she still does not fully understand it.

Patterson was not the only one confused by the amendment. Robert Burrus, who sits on the advisory planning board, said after he voted in favor of the amendment that he had misunderstood it and that commissioners should seek clarification.

The amendment passed 3-1, with Commissioner Jon Thaxton voting against it and Commissioner Christine Robinson abstaining because she had a financial stake in the Nokomis plan the amendment was attached to. Patterson said that at the next commission meeting she will propose another amendment that would limit heights to 85 feet unless there is a super-majority vote.

"To say it could be unlimited dependent on three commissioners on any given day is something I guess I've never been comfortable with as a concept," Patterson said. "I don't think the board gave it significant thought or discussion or public exposure."

The amendment was contained in a zoning code change for the Nokomis Area Revitalization Plan, where developers wanted to build something slightly higher than the code allowed. The confusion came over whether the amendment was limited to just the Nokomis plan or whether it applied to all unincorporated areas in the county.

The staff that wrote the amendment argued that because developers could previously get special exceptions, the amendment was simply "housekeeping" and brought two sets of rules, the zoning code and the comprehensive plan, into agreement.

For developers to take advantage of the lack of height restrictions, they must propose what is known as a critical area plan. Critical area plans typically are in areas like town and village centers or commercial centers and corridors, but a critical area plan could also to be built in "other areas determined appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners," according to the county's comprehensive plan.

<p>Developers could potentially build skyscrapers as tall as they want under a set of sweeping changes approved by county commissioners this week with little discussion.</p><p>The changes, which eliminate longstanding height restrictions on new developments, were included in a zoning amendment for a development in Nokomis.</p><p>The changes were so confusing that at least one commissioner, Nora Patterson, later said she did not fully understand the magnitude of what she had voted on.</p><p>The amendment also shortened the required distance between buildings. Developers will still need approval for their project from a majority of commissioners.</p><p>Although developers could previously get exceptions to the height limits, which typically ranged from 35 to 50 feet depending on the area, they were rare and involved a significant amount of public input and scrutiny. The special exceptions were limited in most places to no more than 85 feet.</p><p>"This just stunned me when I saw it," said Dan Lobeck, a Sarasota attorney and slow growth advocate. "It's short language with huge impact. Instead of a narrowly tailored amendment for the Nokomis Area Revitalization Plan, staff comes in with this broad-brush thing that throws out limits entirely."</p><p>Lobeck and others worry that developers will have no guidelines to know what an acceptable height for a building is, and that there will be an insufficient chance for neighbors to weigh in on, say, plans for a 15-story building next door.</p><p>The amendment comes amid other moves by the county and state to loosen restrictions on growth in an effort to spark development — and the jobs that come with it.</p><p>"The developers are exercising more and more influence over the county commission," Lobeck said. "In 20 years I've never seen it this bad."</p><p>The county is also considering allowing more retail development in areas previously designated for high-wage jobs and eliminating community charrette requirements.</p><p>Earlier this year, the state stopped overseeing local planning decisions and made it harder for citizens to challenge new developments. The state also loosened the requirement of concurrency, which ensures roads, sewer lines and other infrastructure are built to accommodate new developments.</p><p>County Commissioner Joe Barbetta said loosening the county's restrictions will stimulate development in a time when the economy is still reeling from the Great Recession. He added that he did not think the amendment was misleading.</p><p>"Staff has been working on it for awhile so it wasn't a surprise to anybody," Barbetta said.</p><p>But the language in the amendment left some officials confused.</p><p>When Patterson realized what she had voted on, she chastised staff for not making it clear that the amendment called for such a "serious change." Patterson said she would not have noticed the language had Lobeck not brought it to the commission's attention, and that she still does not fully understand it.</p><p>Patterson was not the only one confused by the amendment. Robert Burrus, who sits on the advisory planning board, said after he voted in favor of the amendment that he had misunderstood it and that commissioners should seek clarification.</p><p>The amendment passed 3-1, with Commissioner Jon Thaxton voting against it and Commissioner Christine Robinson abstaining because she had a financial stake in the Nokomis plan the amendment was attached to. Patterson said that at the next commission meeting she will propose another amendment that would limit heights to 85 feet unless there is a super-majority vote.</p><p>"To say it could be unlimited dependent on three commissioners on any given day is something I guess I've never been comfortable with as a concept," Patterson said. "I don't think the board gave it significant thought or discussion or public exposure."</p><p>The amendment was contained in a zoning code change for the Nokomis Area Revitalization Plan, where developers wanted to build something slightly higher than the code allowed. The confusion came over whether the amendment was limited to just the Nokomis plan or whether it applied to all unincorporated areas in the county.</p><p>The staff that wrote the amendment argued that because developers could previously get special exceptions, the amendment was simply "housekeeping" and brought two sets of rules, the zoning code and the comprehensive plan, into agreement.</p><p>For developers to take advantage of the lack of height restrictions, they must propose what is known as a critical area plan. Critical area plans typically are in areas like town and village centers or commercial centers and corridors, but a critical area plan could also to be built in "other areas determined appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners," according to the county's comprehensive plan.</p>